Case study: Advising on changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme

Case study: Lesley is a 48-year-old head of department at a Manchester school. She had 24 years and 212 days of final salary service when the Teachers’ Pension Scheme changed to a career average structure on 1 April 2015. Although she will be able to access her final salary pension benefits at age 60, the benefits accrued in the career average scheme cannot be accessed on an unreduced basis until the higher age of 65 and her state pension age, which is 67.

If Lesley retires at 60, there will be a seven year “gap” between the age at which she can take only her final salary benefits on an unreduced basis and the age at which she can access all her benefits unreduced without an actuarial adjustment to the career average tranche. Lesley would still like to retire at age 60 and meets with her adviser to discuss her options.

Solution: Although she has moved into the career average scheme, her final salary benefits will continue to be linked to her salaries earned in the career average, as long as she does not have a gap in pensionable public service of more than five years ending on or after 1 April 2015. Her adviser must therefore make reasonable assumptions on Lesley’s salary progression over the 12 years to her retirement on 1 October 2027.

Lesley’s career average benefits will revalue by CPI plus 1.6 per cent, as long as she remains in active service, so her adviser will have to make an assumption on CPI over this period. This will also facilitate a lifetime allowance check.

The actuarial reduction to her career average benefits for the period between ages 65 and 67 will be a “standard” reduction of 3 per cent each year, whereas she will suffer a higher reduction for years 60 to 65.

Based on Lesley’s current salary of £55,000, her adviser calculates an expected final salary at age 60 of £64,787, based on an increase of 1.5 per cent per annum. This would give Lesley an expected final salary pension at 60 of £19,906.46, with an expected lump sum of £59,719.41.

Her unadjusted career average pension at age 67 would be £15,693.91 per annum but if she retires at 60 it would reduce to £11,359.25: an actuarial reduction of £4,334.66 per annum.

Lesley’s final salary benefits will not be increased if she takes them later than age 60. If she were to retire as a deferred member before age 67, her career average benefits would suffer the full reduction in respect of years 65 to 67. So her adviser counsels against deferral to age 67.

Instead, the adviser considers it might be most suitable for Lesley to take all her benefits at 60 and make up the career average reduction through additional money purchase or defined benefit contributions.

Lesley’s adviser considers all the options to increase the benefits she will get from her scheme on retirement at age 60. Looking first at the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, the adviser discounts a number of options. Lesley has missed the deadline for an actuarial reduction buyout election, which she would need to have made within six months of joining the career average scheme. The faster accrual option is also unsuitable on the basis that the dependants’ death benefits included are not required: Lesley’s husband has generous pension benefits through his employer and she has no eligible children.

Buying additional pension would allow Lesley to accrue additional self-only pension with no dependants’ pension. As this would also be actuarially reduced if taken early, she would need to buy £6,000 in additional pension to be left with a £4,152 per annum additional pension before revaluation. The gross cost of doing this would be £573.60 per month for 12 years.

Alternatively, if Lesley were to make a gross contribution of £550 per month over 12 years to a money purchase pension arrangement, assuming 5 per cent per annum growth and 1 per cent annual management charge, after 12 years she would have a fund value of £95,800. This would produce a level annuity with a five-year guarantee of around £4,330. Alternatively, Lesley could take one or more cash lump sums from her money purchase pension pot or use drawdown to provide additional income flexibility.

As Lesley anticipates having the greatest expenditure in early retirement and likes the flexibility of being able to increase her contributions when her cashflow allows, her adviser recommends she commences contributions of £550 per month to a money purchase arrangement.

By doing this, Lesley is able to mitigate the impact of the actuarial reduction which would apply to the career average portion of her benefits if she takes them at her previous final salary normal pension age and provide an income shape that meets her expected needs in retirement.

Recommended

Prudential UK & Europe chief executive Jackie Hunt is leaving the organisation after two years in the position. Hunt was appointed to the role in 2013 and succeeded Rob Devey, who left to join advice firm Towry. She was previously finance director at Standard Life. Prudential group investment director John Foley will become UK chief […]

A parliamentary report into the pension freedoms risks encouraging “over-engineering” and a “creeping nationalisation” of finances services, experts warn. Despite citing fears of a lack of transparency around Pension Wise, Parliament’s Work and Pensions select committee this week recommended expanding the service to include property wealth, benefit entitlements, tax implications, care costs and debts. Hargreaves […]

Nutmeg has reported a £5.3m pre-tax loss for 2014, compared to a £3.6m loss the previous year. The online discretionary investment manager reported a turnover of £635,381 for the year, up from £103,903 in 2013. The results say the company may require further cash injections to continue to develop and market its product offering, and […]

Former Ashcourt Rowan chief executive Jonathan Polin is to join Sanlam as chief executive of its private wealth business, Money Marketing understands. Polin stepped down from Ashcourt Rowan after it was bought by Towry in a £120m deal earlier this year. He joined Ashcourt Rowan in 2011, and was formerly sales and marketing director of […]

Ken Rayner and Graham O¹Neill from RSM explain why they rate the fund, its investment process and how it can be used in a portfolio The Artemis US Select Fund became a RSM ‘rated’ fund earlier this year. In this video, Ken Rayner and Graham O’Neill explain the fund’s investment approach, why they rate it, […]

Newsletter

Latest from Money Marketing

BMO Global Asset Management fund manager Robert Burdett has more than halved the exposure to passive funds in most of the multi-manager funds amid fears of a bubble in the market. Burdett, who co-manages the £1.2bn F&C MM Navigator Distribution fund with Gary Potter, says the team has been cutting exposure to passive funds across […]

Opinion differs as to what has caused the advice gap. Some believe the move from commission to fees has made advice unaffordable for the mass market, with advisers having to focus on wealthier clients for commercial reasons, while others say the trend was happening anyway, regardless of the RDR. For Simplified Money director Lesley James, […]

Sales of protection policies are back at peak levels, with the sector growing by more than 20 per cent in the past year, despite adviser complaints over protection’s lack of popularity. According to the latest figures from Equifax Touchstone, sales of protection policies surpassed £149m between July and September this year — their highest level […]

Comments

Whilst this is an interesting piece, given that the Prudential is the Teachers’ Pensions AVC provider the article is perhaps understandably skewed towards the benefits of private (money purchase) pension alternatives. I speak to teachers on a daily basis who were sold Prudential AVCs in the past, usually by the Prudential directly, rather than having selected the Teachers’ Pensions options, and who are now massively worse off as a result.

Against this background it’s frustrating to see the same conflicted opinions being positioned as ‘advice’. To help redress the balance – and particularly in case any teachers stumble across it – here are a few thoughts from an independent specialist:

– Firstly, why is there a ‘career average reduction’ to be made up? Assuming Lesley had continued in the previous 1/80ths final salary scheme as a ‘protected member’ her extra pension at age 60, based on an additional 12 years’ service and a final salary of £64,787 would be £9,718 – ie. LOWER than her new projected actuarially adjusted career average pension of £11,359. (There will be a lump sum shortfall of £29,154, relative to the previous scheme, but the article doesn’t mention this.)

– The article also fails to mention that as long as Lesley retires on, or after her 60th birthday (not before) she has the option of drawing her final salary benefits in isolation and deferring her career average benefits until the age of 67, at which point the full value would be payable. Given the apparent wealth of her husband, one would assume this might be a viable option to consider?

– The scenario is crafted carefully to exclude the Teachers’ Pensions flexibilities as sensible alternatives. Although there are lots of arguments in favour of the approach suggested here, in reality many, if not most, teachers would be well-advised to secure guaranteed, index-linked pension income for life, rather than take on the investment/longevity risks and costs associated with a private solution.

– The comparison between the Teachers’ Pensions additional pension benefits (APB) and the private solution is not made on a level playing field. Using an assumption of 2% p.a. CPI, the APB would actually be worth £5,162 at age 60, after actuarial reduction, not £4,152. Moreover, this income is index-linked for life, protecting it from the potential effects of inflation. As Lesley is likely to live for a further 25+ years in retirement, she may also be well advised to buy and index-linked annuity rather than a level annuity to match the advantages of the APB. At current annuity rates, the £95,800 (assuming the fund grows to this amount in reality – not assured!) would only buy Lesley £2,642 per annum inflation-protected income, rather than £4,330. So it’s really £5,162 (Teachers’ Pensions) vs £2,642 (Private), not £4,152 (Teachers’ Pensions) vs £4,330 (Private), as presented.

In summary, one could be forgiven for thinking that Prudential is playing somewhat fast and loose with the facts here, for obvious reasons.